Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The effect of numerical error on the reproducibility of molecular geometry optimizations

  • Published:
Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Geometry optimization is one of the most often applied techniques in computational drug discovery. Although geometry optimization routines are generally deterministic, the minimization trajectories can be extremely sensitive to initial conditions, especially in case of larger systems such as proteins. Simple manipulations such as coordinate transformations (translations and rotations), file saving and retrieving, and hydrogen addition can introduce small variations (∼0.001 Å) in the starting coordinates which can drastically affect the minimization trajectory. With large systems, optimized geometry differences of up to 1 Å RMSD and final energy differences of several kcal/mol can be observed when using many commercially available software packages. Differences in computer platforms can also lead to differences in minimization trajectories. Here we demonstrate how routine structure manipulations can introduce small variations in atomic coordinates, which upon geometry optimization, can give rise to unexpectedly large differences in optimized geometries and final energies. We also show how the same minimizations run on different computer platforms can also lead to different results. The implications of these findings on routine computational chemistry procedures are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Scheid F (1968) Theory and problems of numerical analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hayes B (2003) A lucid interval. Am Scientist 91:484–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Demmel J (1992) Trading off parallelism and numerical stability. Computer Science Division Tech Report UCB//CSD-92-702, University of California, Berkeley

  4. Lorenz E (1996) The essence of Chaos. University of Washington Press, Seattle. ISBN: 0295975148

  5. Gleick J (1987) Chaos: making a new Science. Penguin Books, New York. ISBN: 0140092501

  6. Sornette D (2002) Nature debates: earthquakes 1999. Internet References. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/earthquake/, accessed on 9/19/2002

  7. Groison D (2002) Est-il vrai que les ordinateurs font des erreurs de calcul? Science Vie 1022:130

    Google Scholar 

  8. Skeel R. (1992) Roundoff error and the patriot missile. SIAM News 25:11

    Google Scholar 

  9. McDonald SW, Gregbogi C, Ott E, Yorke JA (1985) Fractal basin boundries. Physica D 17:125–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barth E, Schlick T (1998) Extrapolation versus impulse in multiple-time stepping schemes. II. Linear analysis and applications to Newtonian and Langevin dynamics. J Chem Phys 109:1633–1642

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Biesiadecki JJ, Skeel RD (1993) Dangers of multiple time step methods. J Comput Phys 109:318–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bishop TC, Skeel RD, Schulten K (1997) Difficulties with multiple time stepping and fast multipole algorithm in molecular dynamics. J Comput Chem 18:1785–1791

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Sandu1 A, Schlick T (1999) Masking resonance artifacts in force-splitting methods for biomolecular simulations by extrapolative Langevin dynamics. J Comput Phys 151:74–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hatano Y, Yamamoto S, Tatewaki H (2005) Characterization of molecular orbitals by counting nodal regions. J Comput Chem 26:325–333

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Young DC (2001) Computational chemistry: a practical guide for applying techniques to real-world problems. Wiley, New York

  16. Stillinger FH (1999) Exponetial multiplicity of inherent structures. Phys Rev E 59:48–51

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Doye JPK, Wales DJ (2002) Saddle points and dynamics of Lennard-Jones clusters, solids and supercooled liquids. J Chem Phys 116:3777–3788

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Blackford LS, Cleary A, Petitet A, Whaley RC, Demmel J, Dhillon I, Ren H, Stanley K, Dongarra J (1997) Practical experience in the numerical dangers of heterogeneous computing. ACM Trans Math Software 23:133–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. MOE (2004) Molecular Operating Environment, version 2004.03; Chemical Computing Group Inc., Montreal

  20. Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA (1995) A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 117:5179–5197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. HyperChem, version 6.0, HyperCube Inc., Gainesville, FL, 32601, USA

  22. ChemX, version 2000.1, Oxford Molecular Ltd., currently Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA, 92121, USA

  23. Cerius2, version 4.9, 2004, Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA, 92121, USA

  24. Halgren TA (1996) Basis, form, scope, parametrization, and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 17:490–519

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Mayo SL, Olafson BD, Goddard WA (1990) DREIDING: a generic force field for molecular simulations. J Phys Chem 94:8897–8909

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Discovery Studio, version 1.7, 2007, Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA, USA

  27. MacroModel 9.1, Schrodinger Inc., Portland, OR, 97204, USA

  28. Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M (1983) A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 4:187–217

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, Tirado-Rives J (1996) Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 118:11225–11236

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuntz ID, Chen K, Sharp KA, Kollman PA (1999) The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:9997–10002

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Braxenthaler M, Unger R, Auerbach D, Given JA, Moult J (1997) Chaos in protein dynamics. PROTEINS: Struct Funct Genet 29:417–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Zhou H, Wang L (1996) Chaos in biomolecular dynamics. J Phys Chem 100:8101–8105

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Duan Y, Kollman PA (2001) Computational protein folding: from lattice to all-atom. IBM Syst J 40:297–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The contribution of Eugen Deretey in the early stages of this work is acknowledged. Paul Labute, Martin Santavy and Jocelyn Demers of Chemical Computing Group are gratefully acknowledged for insightful discussions about the subject. James Bugden is also thanked for useful comments on numerical stability and compiler differences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher I. Williams.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, C.I., Feher, M. The effect of numerical error on the reproducibility of molecular geometry optimizations. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22, 39–51 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9154-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9154-7

Keywords